The Oaks/Westport
A Good Project as a Result of Tough Negotiations by the City Council
In wee hours of the morning, on August 19th, 2020, the Cupertino City Council voted 5-0 to approve the Westport Cupertino project. The Westport development will replace the present Oaks Shopping Center and will include 158 senior apartments (including 27 memory care units), 48 Below Market Rate (BMR) senior units, 70 market-rate town homes, 18 market-rate row homes, and a small amount of retail space.
We all miss the old Oaks Shopping Center. Hobee's. A Clean Well Lighted Place for Books. Swensons. Coffee Society. The Oaks Movie Theater (later the Blue Light Cinema). 24 Hour Fitness. Enzo's. That was a different time, and, unfortunately none of those businesses are coming back.
 |
 |
|
Ray
Bradbury at a Clean Well Lighted Place for
|
Hobee's at The Oaks, Cupertino |
Over the years, multiple owners have proposed new projects for this property. Until now the proposed projects were unacceptable to Cupertino residents, and to the City Council, for a variety of reasons. The City Council twice rejected applications to begin the General Plan Amendment (GPA) process because it was clear that the proposals were simply too outrageous and the residents opposed the height, density, setback, as well as the amount of office space of the proposed projects. The property owner once even tried to collect signatures to put the General Plan Amendment on the ballot, but was unsuccessful in doing so, due to irregularities in their signature petitions; had they been successful in collecting signatures then they almost certainly would have lost at the ballot box.
It's important to understand how City Councils negotiate when a property owner wants to build a project that doesn't comply with the City's General Plan. We can only accept or reject their application to begin the GPA process for their project. We cannot modify their application or redesign their project from the dais. If the project is too outrageous then we simply reject their application to begin the GPA process and give them the opportunity to re-submit their application. A savvy applicant will meet individually with City Council members, as well as with residents, prior to submitting their application to enter the GPA process so they can get a good sense of what would be acceptable to the City Council and to the residents. If the project seems pretty reasonable, and the GPA that the developer is seeking is not wildly outrageous, then we will allow the GPA process to move forward. During negotiations we decide the exact nature of the GPA. The property owner is unlikely to get everything that they are seeking in the GPA, but sometimes there are reasonable requests that are accepted by the City Council.
Since I've been on City Council we've approved two GPAs. One was for a hotel at Cupertino Village and the GPA increased the number of new hotel rooms we allow in Cupertino. Another was for a new hotel at the current Goodyear Tire store and the GPA both increased the hotel room allocation and allowed extra height and reduced setback. In both cases we negotiated some community benefits as well. The Council felt that these projects would be beneficial to the City.
Let's look at how the proposals for the Westport project changed over time, thanks to the City Council's actions:
By good negotiating, we ended up with a project that doesn't worsen our jobs/housing balance, that provides vitally needed affordable housing for seniors, and that has the type of for-sale housing desired by families (though none of the for-sale housing is Below Market Rate (BMR)).
This what the owner of The Oaks wanted to build, but the City Council turned down his requests for General Plan Amendments (and he failed to collect enough signatures to put the General Plan Amendment on the ballot):
Before:
After:
This project is not perfect by any means, but it's the best we could achieve given State Density Bonus Law. This project did not require a General Plan Amendment. Rather than a General Plan Amendment, the property owner took advantage of State Laws that mandate that cities grant Waivers and Concessions to projects that provide a certain level of affordable housing.
Sadly, just like the Vallco
SB-35 project, there are zero affordable units for families in this
project; we couldn't do anything about this because of various state
laws that allow the property owner to not comply with the City's
rules for affordable housing which mandate that affordable housing
be the same size and quality of market-rate housing, and that
require that the affordable units be dispersed throughout the
project. The senior housing will not generate any school-children
and some of the schools near this project are struggling with
under-enrollment.
The lack of affordable housing for families is the result of anti-affordable housing State Laws are promoted by real estate investors and developers that fund the campaigns of state legislators that enact these harmful laws. Various corporate- and developer-backed-WIMBY (Wall Street In My Back Yard) groups also fight against building affordable housing because it isn't as profitable as market-rate housing.
Some people are confused
about the approval saga of Westport, and yes, it's complicated.
Originally the Planning Commission approved the project on a 5-0
vote. After the approval the property owner made a significant
change to the project that eliminated the property owner's ability
to qualify for a 'waiver' under State Density Bonus law. The project
went back to the Planning Commission and was rejected on a 3-2 vote
because it no longer was legally qualified. Two Planning
Commissioners embarrassed themselves by not doing their homework and
not reading the entire staff report. and voted to approve the
non-compliant project. Even though the Planning Commission rejected
the project, the project then came to City Council after the
property owner made a change, which required using a 'concession'
instead of a waiver. The City Council approved the project on a 5-0
vote; there was no legal reason to reject the project.
There are several takeaways from what transpired in the approval process for Westport. First, it is vitally important to select Commissioners that follow the law and that do not let petty political disputes cloud their judgement; Commissioners Fung and Takahashi embarrassed themselves, and the City, by their actions because the issues were clear and there was nothing subjective. Second, details matter; it may seem minor for the Planning Commission to have to rejected a project based on the applicant trying to use a waiver versus a concession, but it actually does matter because an applicant gets an unllimited number of waivers but a limited number of concessions, and we want the applicant to use up their concessions. Third, this was another example of tough negotiations by both the Planning Commission (at least a majority of the Planning Commission) and the City Council. Fourth, it would be unwise to elect City Council members that would have been either a) willing to accept a much worse project in exchange for "Community Benefits," or b) unwilling to put the interests of the City and its residents first.
Residents should beware of groups, often with wonderful-sounding names, that purport to promote equity and inclusion, but, in reality, promote displacement, gentrification, and higher profits for property owners. Some of these groups are well-meaning, but naive, and are easily manipulated by both legislators and developers. Others are astroturf* groups, financed by developers and corporate interests and do their bidding. In Cupertino we've seen a plethora of such groups appear, usually popping up at election time; some groups to beware of are the following: Cupertino Forward, Cupertino Matters, Cupertino Thrives, United Cupertino, Cupertino Residents for Local Ethical Government, Cupertino Getting Things Done Together, Insight Cupertino, and Cupertino for All. By the time you read this their could be several more! The only grassroots group in Cupertino that supports equity, inclusion, and affordable housing is the true grassroots resident-group, Better Cupertino.
It was sad to see one current
City Council candidate falsely claiming, in an August 18th statement
read by the City Clerk during public comment for the Westport agenda
item, that the City Council failed to negotiate with the property
owner of The Oaks. In fact, the City Council listened to residents,
negotiated intensely. As a result we ended up with an acceptable,
but not perfect, project. One current City Council member deplored
the fact that the City Council had not allowed a much denser
project, with a large amount of office space, because there would
have been the opportunity to extract 'Community Benefits' from the
developer. The narrative of 'Let us build something really awful,
that the community hates, but we'll give you something to make up
for how terrible our project is,' is a narrative that I reject. If
Cupertino needs a new city hall, a performing arts center, an
aquatic center, or an expansion of the library, then we need to pay
for it ourselves or go without. If we need extra money to pay for it
then we can make a case to our residents as to why they should vote
for a new tax or bond measure to finance it, and let the residents
decide. The City Council works for the residents, not the other way
around.
A special thanks to grassroots community groups like Better Cupertino for their help in moving the Westport project forward. Better Cupertino advocates for affordable housing, for-sale housing, senior housing, and for maintaining our jobs to housing balance. Without dedicated residents that work to create a better Cupertino for all, we would not have been successful in getting a good project.
*Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participants. It is a practice intended to give the statements or organizations credibility by withholding information about the source's financial connection.
Steven Scharf for Cupertino City Council 2020 FPPC ID #1388099